Comments

I don't think I will watch this one. The expected result is a KO win by Canelo, probably by Round 4 or 5. I don't know much about Liam Smith, but from what I've seen, he is tailor made for Canelo. Smith seems to struggle keeping a good balance during his fights, and has a reckless and vulnerable offensive. I think Canelo will wait for Smith to barge in, and counter his wild punches with accurate combinations.

It's boring to have such a predictable fight coming from the fact of avoiding GGG. Golden Boy must be waiting for GGG to start campaigning in a new division or for him to grow old enough to let canelo have a chance.

But as you say, you know little about Liam Smith, who is the most underestimated fighter in his division in my strong opinion, not necessarily the best, but the most underestimated. I'd happily eat my head with my hat on it if Alvarez was to have an easy time against Smith, and you shouldn't rule out the possibility that he pulls off the upset. I think Liam Smith easily makes the top 5 in his division, and will give Saul Alvarez a very hard challenge on fight night.

I think Liam Smith is widely underestimated by most fans outside of the UK, and will shock everyone with his performance against Alvarez. I think the unnecessary advantages for Alvarez will be clear from the outset, weight being the main one, and a huge factor in victory, I think Alvarez is going to win this fight, but not nearly as easily as many people think. I think this fight will go the distance, and it will be a competitive 12 rounds, I think Smith will win a few rounds (maybe 3-5), it wouldn't surprise me if this fight turned out to be close.

Liam Smith is yet to be really tested at the top, both of his title defences have been against quite badly over matched opposition, but in both, he has impressed big time, one thing that can be said for him is that he has a fantastic chin, he's extremely durable, he seems to really enjoy hitting his opponent with the realisation that he can take their power all night long, and he loves a fight, has he fought anybody with anything like the power of Saul Alvarez? No, but I think he can handle the power, the power of Alvarez is something one had to be impressed by based in the Kirkland fight, and the Khan fight, but I don't think it's wise to get ahead of yourself, and I think Smith can handle the power of Canelo. One thing is for sure, and that is that Liam Smith is in totally the right place, Boxnation followers know that he has been searching for an opportunity like this for some time now, he has been showing signs of improvement, he has great talent, he's strong at this weight, he's a big light middleweight, physically, Alvarez won't be able to make his unfair advantage what he thinks he can make it. I find this fight very fascinating, I'm not for it really, I'm against it, but only because I think Alvarez is competing in the wrong weight category, and the rules should be respected, I think now that it is what it is, the fact that Liam Smith is his opponent is good, and I can't wait for this fight, I find it very fascinating, Liam Smith may be the most underrated fighter on the planet, I see shades of Gennady Golovkin in his style, the way he cuts off the ring, the way he sustains that educated pressure, the way he's so selective and versatile with his offence, he's a fantastic inside fighter, he carries a lot of power, he's very dangerous with body punches, which take steam out of his opponent, his style will suit Alvarez, because Alvarez struggles against fighters who create distance and catch him on the way out, his movement is relatively slow, he struggled with lateral movement, an offensive minded fighter like Liam Smith who is perhaps not so hard to hit (although his defence will be underestimated) is made for Alvarez, but I still don't think this is going to be easy for Canelo.

Should Alvarez be fighting Golovkin this year?, possibly, should he be competing in 154 lb division?, absolutely not, I think there are certain things which just have to be waited for, and some things shouldn't raise people's hopes, I think Golovkin vs Alvarez is one of these things, I think this fight not happening has damaged the reputation of Alvarez, regardless of whether or not the Golovkin fight ever happens, I don't think Alvarez should stay at light middleweight, because I think it's unethical, and bad for the sport. I wish Liam Smith the best of luck for this fight, and will be rooting for him on September 17.

I'm still not sure I'll watch this fight. Might go out for the night and enjoy some quality nightime. Might watch a video later, but meh. This is a fight tailored for Canelo to win by KO, going from the opponent's fight style to the drug testing when he obviously struggles to make weight. Don't waste your time on this.

Oh no, you won't watch it, disaster upon disaster, OK, but like I say old chap, you'll miss out.

Well, you say that, but you don't really know, Smith, stylistically is seemingly convenient for Alvarez, because of his 'Mexican style', but that only means so much when you're talking about a champion like Liam Smith, he's a great fighter, a legitimate world champion in his own right, this will not be easy for Alvarez, and he knows it, I really hope Smith pulls off the upset, but I'm confident he will make a great account of himself, I guess it is tailor made for Alvarez in a sense, because of the style of Smith, but come on, what did you expect?, guys like Garcia, and Alvarez, which you just love to hate, they do have people with power looking out for them, and making their careers very convenient, and bear in mind the fact that you're speaking from the point of view of someone who doesn't know anything about Liam Smith. Saul Alvarez is not an idiot, he knows Liam Smith is extremely underestimated, he's very awkward for anyone, he's very versatile, he's a big light middleweight, he strong, he's incredibly durable, consistent precision is an attribute, but because his resume doesn't do him justice (I'm assuming you've never seen him fight), Alvarez won't get credit for this win (if the fight goes the way I think it will), he knows that, but he's still training hard, and ready to give his efforts for a win, his all, he deserves credit for that. He may well struggle to make the weight, but he should be able to rehydrate in good time, I hope that's the case, Liam Smith is apparently 'the weak link', in the division, the British pundits who know half of how and why he isn't, understand that he is a challenge at the very least, for any champion. OK, let's just get something straight mate, you replied to me, every second I 'waste' on this, is time you also waste, and I know, that time taken discussing a fascinating fight like this, and filling in those who don't know Jack about this fight, isn't a waste of time.

I'm not suggesting he is, I'm not even necessarily saying Alvarez wins it, let alone like he beat Smith. I'm going to state an opinion, now if you disagree with this, then the fact that you say so will be enough for me to believe you, and there is no shame in this if I'm right. I think you want to Golovkin vs Alvarez for a different reason to why I want to see it, I think you want to see it really because you want to see Alvarez lose, and take a beating, more than because you think it's actually an interesting fight and who won doesn't mean that much to which is why I want to see it, I'm probably in the minority, do I have a point?

You're not wrong. I do want Golovkin to win and gain the respect he deserves. He is the best in the division and one of the best in the world. Canelo's loss to him would confirm this. You have a point. That minority is growing after the Smith performance. Unfortunately there is now a split (bordering civil war) between boxing's Canelo fans and Triple G fans.

I think he's already got that, I think it's Alvarez who doesn't get the respect he deserves. Yes, unless Canelo beat Golovkin, I don't think it would happen, I still highly doubt it in fact, but it's not a mismatch, and Alvarez is an elite middleweight in his own right, you shouldn't write him off, I think he is moving straight back up to 160, hey here's a thought, if Canelo did do this, and fought Eubank Jr, wow, what a fight that would be! To me, Golovkin and Alvarez are two of the best in the world, in the same division really (I think you know what I mean by that), and it would be so interesting, besides so exciting if they fought, they're two great champions, I would happy for either if they won, I think everybody should think like that, and actually appreciate the sport, because otherwise, it isn't even about boxing really, it's just about seeing a man get hurt, which I don't like, it reminds me of Mayweather vs Pacquiao, many didn't want to see that because they liked both, struggled to pick a winner and were intrigued by the exciting match up, they had a grudge against Mayweather, and wanted to see him take a beating, I think him being seemingly reluctant to accept the fight offers made it look as if he was intimidated, and shy of taking the fight because he feared he lose, but we now know that there was a reason for that, all Mayweather wanted was for Pacquiao to agree to the random drug testing, I'm not saying I think Alvarez will do to Golovkin what Mayweather did to Pacquiao if and when they meet in the ring, but I think the two situations have a lot in common, because let's be realistic, Alvarez is a dedicated enough athlete to become champion of the world, nobody tries to deny how out standing his overall toughness is, if we were to compare Floyd Mayweather to Gennady Golovkin, we see they may have been closely contested, Alvarez knows he is far better now than he was when he fought Mayweather, the defeat any fighter is more afraid of out of the first and second is the first one, my point here is that when we think about it rationally, we see Alvarez isn't really too afraid to fight Golovkin, I think there's a good chance it is because of disagreements between teams, maybe it's about money, maybe it's about the venue, maybe both Golovkin are being lied to by someone with power, maybe Golovkin and Alvarez are metaphorically having words put in their mouths, I don't know, maybe it's combination of all these things, maybe the situation is a pickle, maybe this is the intention of those with power, whatever the case is, at some point, we will learn exactly why the fight was delayed before.

I think two things that make Golovkin vs Alvarez more interesting, are the level of opposition which Alvarez has competed against in comparison to Golovkin (not by any means criticising Golovkin), and the other is time, Golovkin is in his early declining years, and Alvarez, well he's approaching his prime, he's not even quite there yet. I do think Golovkin beats Alvarez, but to me, it should be unanimously viewed as a great, fascinating fight between two elite boxers, rather than just an opportunity to see a champion (who deserves a lot more respect than this) get battered. It's fine to support a fighter, and not be neutral as to who you want to win, because all fans supper certain fighters, but the thing in this situation is that for the people I'm criticising, their dislike for Alvarez is far stronger than their like for Golovkin, and if Alvarez beat Golovkin, they'd all say Golovkin was a 'hype job', 'he has slow feet', 'he's clumsy', 'he never fought anybody whose any good', etc, you see where I'm coming from?

I think it was George Foreman who said boxing is like a western movie. People come to see good guys beat the bad guys. Mayweather always took the bad guy persona. People bought the fight in hopes he would lose. His talent always prevailed. You are 100% right about that May-pac fight.

For me there's no excuses though. Alvarez invited Golovkin into the ring after Khan and said "mexicans don't fuck around" and then dumped the belt rather than fight him. A fighter must have self-belief and integrity and dumping the belt gets 0 respect from me. For example Riddick Bowe was an all time great heavyweight but he dumped his belt rather than fight Lennox Lewis which was a pretty close fight in terms of skill and Bowe definitely had a chance (a bit similar to the current golovkin-canelo situation) but he ducked Lewis and dumped the belt rather than fight him.

That is true Alvarez has faced better opposition but they include Mayweather (lost), Lara (lost) and Trout (lost) and Miguel Cotto (we'll give him that one) who avoided triple G as well. None of us forget how Cotto lost his words when asked about Golovkin.

I see what you mean but people want a champion like GGG who gives fans good fights and represents the sport well. Canelo is a protected fighter and the problem is there is too much corruption among Oscar and his camp. His wide scorecards are too frequent and it's evident what is going on. Paulie Malinaggi has even noticed this referring to the judges who had Canelo up against Khan as "scumbags." For me Canelo does not represent boxing very well.

If Alvarez beat Golovkin there would be a few reasons:

1- He waited until Golovkin was seriously declining
2- The judges were paid off

In all fairness Alvarez isn't the only boxer I hate, there's also: Pacquiao, Khan, Haskins

Good quote, and good source, very intelligent man George Foreman, and what a champion he was, and to accomplish what he did at his age, puts us young guys to shame. Yeah, I agree with that, like I say, I understand and support fans motivating fighters they like, and wanting guys they don't like, to lose, but I think the situation there is more about wanting the good guys to win, but what I'm criticising, is people who want Golovkin to get his golden opportunity, and win, just as a tool to beat Alvarez, I guess they want him to be used, I guess you could call him a weapon, you know what I mean?, I would be interested to hear what George Foreman was talking about when he said that, I'm sure he was making a good point. Actually, I don't think that was the case, I'll explain why, Adrien Broner, why don't we like him?, he's cocky, he's arrogant, he's disrespectful, he's committed horrible crimes for leisure many times in the past, disrespecting the value of finance was an infuriating, vicious example, he clearly enjoys playing the bad guy. Why don't we like Floyd Mayweather, because he's arrogant?, maybe a bit, because he's beaten up women multiple times?, absolutely, is that him playing the bad guy?, not at all, domestic abuse is a horrible scenario which happens in someone's personal life, it isn't something that happens because the instigator is enjoying committing evil crimes, my point is that Mayweather was always a victim of his own sins, not a guy who deliberation built himself up as a bad guy who loved to be hated,nevertheless, he was disliked, and viewed as the bad guy.

Well, that's a fair point to make, we all saw it, it did happen, but ask yourself why he did that, personally, I believe a lot of it is staged, not all of it, maybe none of it in this case, but although I could be wrong as I've just said, I think maybe Alvarez was instructed rightly or wrongly to make a comment like that, and as for the belt, well maybe he felt he would be more comfortable at light middleweight, maybe it was always only going to be temporary, maybe it was an experimental thing, I don't know, but there must have been a reason for it, maybe it was to make people believe the Golovkin fight was never going to happen. I always found that frustrating, but I don't think Golovkin vs Alvarez is another Lewis vs Bowe. Alvarez is very likely to move back up to 160 now, if he was avoiding the Golovkin fight, then why not stay in a different division?

Actually that's not right, he lost to Mayweather, granted, and it was a bit if a boxing lesson in my opinion. Saul Alvarez beat Erislandy Lara and Austin Trout, you and I both had him a round or two down in both, but the bottom line is, frustrating split decisions happen in boxing, this is when boxing's at it's most subjective, in these fights that can be legitimately disputed either way, the fact of the matter is that he beat Lara and Trout, three of those six scorecards were fair enough (that kind of proves the point we were both making a few weeks ago), I reckon that on average, 6 or 7 pundits out 10 would say he beat Lara and and Trout, actually that's an estimate, but what I'm saying is that if you can't won't say he won, then you can't say he lost either, this is when we really need good judges in this sport, yet, they always let us down, but to adjust that equation, Mayweather (lost), Lara (won), Trout (won), Cotto (won). I bet Cotto didn't avoid GGG, he just didn't know what to say, I think his trouble in knowing his answer to Kellerman's question came from the fact that he wanted to fight Golovkin, but he didn't want to promise the fans anything, because who wants to make a promise they know they can't keep?, I think Cotto leaves the promotional jobs, to his promoter, but a Golovkin fight was always going to be hard to make, one of the reasons being that Cotto knew he wasn't really a middleweight at the time.

Alvarez does that too, well, I believe, he gives us fantastic fights, nobody can take that away from him, and as for representing the sport, he's a bit rebellious, granted he isn't being respectful towards Golovkin, which isn't necessary, I know you don't like the way he controls his weight, but I don't think it's completely his fault, and I think a lot of his attitude is to do with his age, but he think he's alright, he's fought for respect from a young age, I bet his daughter in particular but his whole family give him that motivation that he needs to be great, he's come through hard times, and become a world champion, just because a vacated a belt to fight at another weight and made a few disrespectful comments means he doesn't deserve respect?, I don't think so. Well, he shouldn't have used that term, but obviously, he was right, 49-46 was the right score in that fight, I know there were only five rounds, but there was no subjectivity whatsoever, Harold Lederman had it 48-47 Alvarez, typical, and those judges, we're way off the mark, but it's not Alvarez's fault, they knew they were losing, they knew they hadn't won a round in the first 4, by any chance, they knew they had to adjust, I think if you asked Canelo and the Reynoso's, they'd probably say they were behind, the issue with the judges isn't something you should blame Alvarez for, then again, I agree it is a serious issue.

That's what you believe, you don't know, how do you know Alvarez won't defeat Golovkin fair and square?, you don't, you consider it every unlikely, and you've every right to believe it wouldn't be anywhere near close, but you don't know, everyone 'knew' Tyson wasn't going to beat Klitschko last year, everyone 'knew' Buster Douglas wasn't going to defeat Mike Tyson, everyone 'knew' Lloyd Honeyghan wasn't going to beat Donald Curry, and of course, everyone 'knew' young Cassius Clay wasn't going to beat Sonny Liston, a bit like you 'know' Golovkin will beat Alvarez. I doubt the fight will be held up until Golovkin's badly declined, it possible, but barely, and as for the judges, I wouldn't worry about that, everyone talks about it so much, it's been brought to everyone's attention (although I suppose you'll argue that it was brought to everyone's attention although while ago, but it didn't stop those bad judges being just that in Canelo vs Khan, which is a fair point that I have to admit, I struggle counter), I think the judges will be picked very wisely, Abel Sanchez probably wouldn't allow why judges that have ever given Alvarez any favours he doesn't deserve in the past, but something interesting I notice, although the mathematics is sometimes shocking, Alvarez has never gotten a bad decision, he didn't actually beat Mayweather officially, very close fights, but Lara, Trout, and Cotto, perfectly valid that he beat them all.

Well, with all due respect buddy, don't, it's not healthy for anyone, I could get ganged up on because I have this belief, but I'll stand by it, I don't believe you should hate anyone without good reason, well, say you do, I know you don't really hate these guys, but I don't really get the point of disliking them so strongly, Pacquiao, I can half understand, because you strongly suspect him of terrible drug related crimes and he's yet to attempt to prove his apparent innocence, but Khan, he made some cheeky comments, and Haskins, a few judges have given him too much credit, and again, made some snide remarks, come on, I'm not convinced you hate them.

Through me thoroughly disagreeing with a lot of what you have said and vise versa, I think we can agree on one thing, Golovkin vs Alvarez must happen, and if not that what a blow that would be. I personally, think Alvarez's style is inconvenient for Golovkin, and will cause particular problems for GGG, but because I think GGG wind big, that only makes the fight closer and more interesting in my opinion.

True, Alvarez may stay at 154 now but he has fought comfortably at middleweight before. I don't really understand what his problem would be but we don't know what happens behind closed doors.

Actually when I talk about fighters, personally I don't care what the official decision is. If I saw that a figther lose for me the fighter lost. Take Pernell Whitaker for example. He beat Chavez, I don't include that as a draw when I judge/evalaute him as a fighter. He didn't lose against De La Hoya either I consider that a win for him. That may sound ridiculous but in disputed decisions I judge the fighters on how I saw the fight. When I take Canelo I watched Trout and Lara beat him so I consider him a loser in those 2 fights. This is something I personally do. You may disagree but... oh well.

You're right about 6/10 pundits picking Canelo over Trout and Lara but to be honest...

we know how to score a fight

(DROP THE MICROPHONE)

Nah, I'm just joking (kinda, disrespectfully)

I don't blaming the judging on Alvarez, I don't blame everything on Alvarez but he is part of a collective suffering including Oscar De La Hoya and Golden Boy. Even if they are in control and dictate everything Canelo should know right from wrong and not be such a puppet. If he really wanted the Golovkin fight then it should have happened. He's a middleweight champion and that fight would be the biggest payday for both.

A few things about those upsets:

Klitschko was like 39 years old (but Tyson too good on the night)
Cassius Clay vs Sonny Liston (both fights have mob involvement heavily suspected, especially the second one)
Mike Tyson barely trained for the fight and still had Douglas down for 14 seconds from a right hand (to be fair though Douglas had Tyson down for 15 seconds before the fight was stopped)

You find that these upsets often involve guys far past their best or who had no effort put in getting destroyed by a man on a mission. You make a great point. Alvarez might beat Golovkin, who's already heading towards post-prime stage. Most likely why he's delaying it. I "know" he will win because the best of Golovkin is better than the best Canelo from what I have seen. But the clock is ticking. True Canelo ain't got no bad decision but he's got some terrible scorecards.

I strongly dislike Pacquiao not only because of PEDs but the comments he has made, particularly about homosexuality and used the bible to justify it. He may be a born again Catholic but 6/10 Catholics support gay-marriage if I recall. This "Christian" also is a tax avoider, adulterer and has been accused of beating another politician (not sure on validity here, went out of papers quickly). All in all, I don't think he's a great human being. I wouldn't go out of my way to get an autograph.

Khan's too full of himself and talks far too much. Yes hate is a very strong word but he's an incredibly annoying person.

Haskins is also very cheeky. Great chin, shit boxer.

Golovkin vs Alvarez must happen next year at the latest. If Alvarez beat Golovkin though I'd give up on the sport and delete my eyeonthering account and become a Tibetan monk.

No sorry I meant to say it's more likely he will move back up to 160, did you hear what Gary Locket was saying about how weight put on between the weigh on and the fight isn't always an advantage?, it was interesting.

Well that's something that we all need to accept, it's all well and good to have your own opinion on what really happened in the ring after the fight, and as you know, had it been up to me, along with a large minority of knowledgeable, observant viewers, Alvarez would have lost, and in your defence, poor judging erases 33% of the validity in the decision when Alvarez beats Lara, and when he beats Trout, poor judging erases 67% of the validity, we both had Trout by one point in that fight if I remember rightly. My overall point is, when having a discussion about what the situation is with Alvarez and his record, we have to go with the fact that he beat both Lara and Trout, that's just the way it is, I mean, some think De La Hoya beat Mayweather Jr, are we going to discredit Mayweather and consider it a loss, when Adrien Broner beat Malignaggi, and Ponce De Leon, people thought they went the other way, his defeats are still only Porter and Maidana to me, I consider them the only defeats, and I had him pipped by a couple against Malignaggi and De Leon, I thought Frampton vs Santa Cruz was a draw, but I consider that a spectacular win for Frampton, and I'm happy for him, in case you don't understand what I'm trying to say (because I'm not explaining it clearly), it isn't that you are wrong in believing what you believe about Alvarez and his close fights, I just want to point something out to you in case you didn't already know, there was open scoring for Alvarez vs Trout, at 8, the cards were divulged, 77-74, reasonable, 78-73, invalid and harsh, 80-71, Stanley Christodulo, unbelievable, he did give Trout the last round, Alvarez had little to no success in that very one sided round, but just remember the effort from Trout in the last 4 rounds, managing to not be demotivated by knowing he was being done an injustice, and Louis Burke, he did well to not jump out of the ring and sort those judges out, but just to repeat, team Trout knew what the score was, they must have known they'd lost before the decision was announced. I remember looking on a website and seeing about 100 (maybe more), experts' scorecards for Alvarez vs Trout, there were more for Alvarez, but I count count his profit number on my fingers, clenching a fist with my other hand, I'm rambling on and going off on a tangent, it's just that I'm such a massive Austin Trout fan, I was really impressed by his performance against Charlo, the Canelo fight made me really cross. Exactly, I'm your mate, and because of that, you can do what you want to do, you can tell me to f*** off, and I won't mind.

Me and you?, we know how to score a fight, but they know better, well, most of them, good old Harold Lederman, nice, sweet old fat guy who sits in pubs all day, appears friendly and talks about how he's been scoring boxing for 50 years (when I'm his age, I'll have been following boxing for decades longer than he has now, and and look a lot younger too, haha, facially, and in physique), it doesn't mean he knows the first thing about boxing, I have to admit, the idiot gets on my nerves, and Max Kellerman, you know mate, if I boxed on HBO, and lost, I would run out of the ring because I'd be scared Mr Kellerman would shout at me for losing, and report me to the headmistress.

Well, it's not his fault, it's as simple as that, anyway, if you say that the judges scoring doesn't contribute towards your personal dislike for Alvarez, the that's good enough for me. I agree that he should think about his morals, and prioritise the fairness and well being of the sport, but I disagree about the Golovkin fight necessarily having happened before now, I remember one SkySports, a year or two ago, Johnny Nelson, Adam Smith, George Groves, and James Degale (the atmosphere was awkward as I'm sure you can imagine), they were talking about how very often, when fights don't happen, it's not because the two boxing greats don't want to fight each other but, it's more to do with promotional problems and other issues people aren't aware of, I mean, it wouldn't be an easy fight to promote, besides the temptation of it being built up, because it would be such a massive event, and such a massive occasion, the money, the venue, the gloves, the weight, the revamp many other things. A lot of issues can hold fights up, it can be made to look bad from the outside and as if a boxer isn't who they claim to be, but as we learned from Mayweather vs Pacquiao, it doesn't mean both aren't hoping the fight happens, so I don't agree that the fight not having happened confirms Alvarez's desire not to have the fight, and I don't think he doesn't want the fight to happen sooner or later.

OK, but it didn't change the fact that he was a massive underdog, Clay vs Liston is known for being one of the greatest upsets of all time, I doubt that mob involvement made a significant difference, again, fair point, and yes, I'm aware Tyson under performed against Buster Douglas, and yes, I'm aware that as these examples express, often unkmown disadvantages can contribute slightly or heavily towards upsets, but that isn't always the case, I can give you some more upsets, this week, Glowacki losing, that was an upset, a massive upset, John Molina Jr beating Ruslan Provodnikov, that was an upset, Kell Brook beating Shawn Porter, that was an upset, when Dave Ryan beat Paul Mcloskey, upset, when Michael Moorer beat Evander Holyfield, when Ali beat Foreman, the list goes on, you probably think of a valid but not compensating excuse for the majority of these upsets, but not all.

OK, I'll phrase that another way, the best Alvarez vs the best Golovkin, you don't know for sure that Alvarez wouldn't win fair and square, you highly doubt it, and I do, but we can't be sure, we don't know who is the better of the two, Alvarez is improving, and I think he will continue to improve, which makes the fight more interesting, which for me, is very good, because I want to see both fighters achieve against each other. From what you've seen, you strongly believe Golovkin is much better than Alvarez, I do too, but we don't know. I don't think that is the plan, maybe, but I doubt it, Golovkin looks after himself, he's a great athlete, his fights never take much out of him, I think for time to make a difference, they would have to wait awfully long, Golovkin will probably retire in about 5 years, I'd imagine, he doesn't strike me as the sort of guy to carry on too long. He has, I think there should be an investigation into those judges, they should be punished, and if they wish to continue with their careers, re educated, when Alvarez fights, it should be different judges which are on duty.

We don't know for sure that he took PEDs, it's very possible, I believe so, I don't know so, but, without beating around the bush, the facts are, for him to be innocent, his skull capacity has to have increased after he finished growing, which is phenomenally rare if possible, the only case in which I've heard of this happening in the past, is cases in which steroids have been used, the while toradol and cortisone thing, which was very suspicious, well, the only explanation to that would be that his injury was not that bad but getting something to help it was worth a try, he had been lucky with injuries in the past, and strangely but honestly, he was told about a rare, not so effective drug with performance enhancing side effects before he learned what cortisone was, this is very unlikely, but I suppose we can't rule it out, maybe the weight thing, well, his physical nature just stands out, no explanation for it, that just the way it is. I'm livid about that, I'm a christian, as are many of my friends and my parents, I know being christian is really about trying to help each other on this planet, look put for one another, never judge, and enjoy the fact that God's love encourages us to do this, without making myself sound like a snob in any which way, to discriminate, is very unchristian, we're not all do gooders like Pacquiao implies, forcing his beliefs on everyone (because I think he takes advantage of his faith), we're normal people, Pacquiao has abused his religion, and to this day, boxing aside, I'm quite angry about that. I have no respect for Pacquiao any more, I wouldn't had he beaten Mayweather, and by the way, next time someone tries to argue against that fact, don't bother trying to educate them, just calmly remind of the fact that Freddie Roach, Manny's trainer, thought they lost, never in a million years, will you see a fight that could go either way, but 2/2 trainers think a certain fighter won, that's full proof, and it's evidence which saves time.

Maybe, but hey, for some of us, it's in our nature to be annoying, I'm sure he's a nice guy behind closed doors, a good hearted family man who deserves so much respect for all he's achieved in the ring, and I can say the same for Haskins, he may be a pot of things, fortunate to have his title?, in my opinion, although it was a fair decision, he got over Hall, disrespectful at times? Yes, is he the most fan friendly?, no, but if there's anything the man isn't, it is a 'shit boxer'. I do think Haskins vs Hall III would be ideal, but it's unlikely to happen.

Haha, who's a comedian?, if we knew each other in person, I reckon we'd make a good comedic duo, me with my impersonating skills, you with your dry humour. You wouldn't become a monk, you would happily admit you were wrong, and be happy for Alvarez, I hope, how do I know?, because whenever you've been wrong in that past, I've seen your reactions, and you admitted, you were wrong, that's how people learn, whether it's a hobby, or something more important, but I'm confident you would congratulate Alvarez if he beat Golovkin, but again, for what it's worth, although he impressed me immensely against Smith, I still think Golovkin betas him.

Interesting point about De La Hoya vs Mayweather but that really wasn't a split decision and you will have to go very far to find someone who scored that fight for Oscar. I don't think I've seen anyone who has thought Oscar nicked it yet. I've seen it 3 times and I believe Floyd won everytime. That's how I see it.

I haven't seen those Broner fights so I can't judge sorry.

No I see your point. What went down historically is undeniable and the opinions of the many outweight the few. Canelo beat Trout. Mayweather beat Maidana, I still believe otherwise and although the scorecards were bad (117-111 ?) the majority of people thought Mayweather stole it 7-5. I accept that.

Sometimes Harold is good and bad but the 119-109 card for Bradley-Pac 1 ?????? Really ??? Max seems like a cool guy. I like Max.

I think it was held up from Canelo's desire to have the fight at 155 and trying to force GGG to come down and play by his rules. That's not fair.

Although you are right about the excuses just wanted to throw an interesting fact about Holyfield-Moorer. In the scoring one of the judges really screwed up on the round with the knockdown(scoring it 10-10 instead of 10-9 as Moorer got up from the knockdown and dominated the rest of the round) and ended up giving the fight to Moorer but had he actually scored it properly with a 10-9 round Holyfield would have gotten a draw and kept his titles.

Good points about Manny Pacquiao.

I'm not going to lie. Haskins is a pretty crappy looking boxer to me. His hands are too low and he swings to wide. He has some good movement but terrible defensively at points and against Stuart Hall (I'm not having a bash but Hall isn't the elite elite if you get me) he in my eyes definitely lost and caught so many flush right hands to the jaw it's actually worrying. He was taking very clean, hard shots from round 3 onwards. He needs to work on things because if that keeps up there will be concerns about his longtime health from me.

To be honest I wouldn't be happy. I would act like Cotto fans when Pacquiao came and fought him. Sobbing actually waterfalls of tears that my guy lost. So many tears that a Tsunami would start across the UK.

Ok then, fair enough, it was years ago that I saw that fight, so, instead, I'll replace it with the Mayweather vs Castillo example, to this day, I believe Castillo won that fight, but it was a fair decision, and Mayweather won, that's just the way it is.

No worries, I wasn't asking your opinions on the fight, I just thought you'd be interested to read that information. Adrien Broner is a great talent, and a great fighter, but believe it or not, one could not complain if he had 5 losses on his record rather than just 2, Fernando Quintero, Daniel Ponce De Leon, Paulie Malignaggi, they could have all gotta decisions over him, and to be honest, I thought they all had the better of him by a couple of points.

Yeah mate that's exactly what I'm saying, but like I say, I agree with you about what you wish to be able to state as facts. Mayweather vs Maidana, well, we've been down that road before, and got on each others nerves, but I join the experts in the belief that Mayweather decisively out pointed Maidana, and I believe you'll re watch in 6 months, maybe a year, maybe less than 6 months, maybe more than a year, and day exactly the same thing, however, Maidana was not out classed, it was not a landslide victory, those who had 116-112 obviously don't think it was a close fight, competitive, and Maidana gave Mayweather a very tough fight, but they don't agree with those who had it a round or two closer, and say what I say, it was not only a dramatic, exciting fight, but also a genuinely close fight. One thing though, the most common score for Mayweather vs Maidana 1 was probably 116-112, not 115-113.

Fair enough, I won't discourage you from liking someone, I don't like him, but maybe that's just me being silly. Something I will say about Max, is that the comments he made after Mayweather vs Pacquiao were ridiculous, and I'm glad Paulie Malignaggi silenced him with real knowledge. Harold Lederman is an idiot, 119-109 for Pacquiao was terrible, so was 115-111 for Castillo against Mayweather, 117-111 for Devon Alexander against Kotelnik, Matthysse vs Provodnikov 114-114, Alvarez vs Cotto 117-111 Alvarez.

That's a possibility,

I didn't know that, but if remember rightly, Moorer clearly won that fight, so it must have been a blessing in disguise, Holyfield was very poor that night, but then again, that proves your point, that often upsets are down to disadvantages of some kind, I haven't seen the rematch, but I heard Holyfield won massive.

He's a genuine world champion, he's defended his title twice, that can mean very different things, depending on the scenario, obviously, but it always means the fighter is far better than a 'crappy boxer'. That's just his style, his posture is not something most people think is a good way to assert yourself in the ring, but it is his style, it isn't that rare to have a guard like that, Carl Froch, Kubrat Pulev, Naseem Hamed, Tyson Fury, Richard Abril, many others all hold their guard like that, there are pros and cons to it, obviously, whilst the left hand is low, it isn't really protecting the fighter, well, it's more that it isn't really there to protect the fighter, and obviously, that's always a risk, but at the same time, when you throw that jab from the top of the thigh, it is very hard for the opponent to anticipate, it's much harder for the opponent to time their defensive response to the jab when it comes from that awkward upward angle. As for swinging 'too' wide, again, that's just his style, it might not be pretty, but it works for him, and it puts the points in the bank, and again, there are pros and cons to his unusual angles. He does move very well, that's a great attribute for him, moving on the balls of his feet, using the ring, foot speed is an attribute, but the way he uses his feet is a better one, changing direction at the right times, it's not something you don't get taught, but it's also not something you can learn easily. Haskins's defence can dip sometimes, but that's just through his maturity, and concentration letting him down, over all he's a great defensive fighter, against Stuart Hall, second time around, yes, he did take a lot of punches, and he did have trouble making Hall miss, but that's because of his defensive style not being useful at the right time, Haskins's best defensive weapon is his footwork, now, his footwork is a fantastic attribute, but head movement, and blocking abilities, well he doesn't use them often, I think the answer to that is that he's such a good fighter, and he's had a lot of things his own way in his career, he's never needed to use any other defensive tool other than his footwork, his upper body rotation is something he used very well against Ivan Morales, and something I think he should have used against Stuart Hall, but his footwork is by far his best way of using his defensive ability, he showed great movement for the first 5 rounds against Stuart Hall, but moving like that, on the balls of your feet, for a long time, under that kind of pressure, is a big ask, it absolutely drains you as the fight wears on, and if your opponent doesn't over exert themselves through early frustration, then they're likely to be a pot less fatigued than you, now, because Haskins underestimated Hall's ability as a hardcore pressure fighter, so the pressure he was made to work under was a lot harder than he expected, and because of this, it's even more exhausting, now, because his movement slowed down so much (with this being his only real defensive weapon), he was much easier for Hall to catch. Now, this is interesting, because like Haskins' posture which you criticise understandably, his defence is a pro/con situation, in the scenario with Hall, because of the fact that he was too fatigued to make good use of his footwork, and he isn't a strong defensive fighter when it comes to blocking ability, or head movement, his defence let him down, and Hall was able to use his offence accurately, and he was really dominant. Let's say, Haskins wasn't 'terrible defensively' as you say, and his movement wasn't a particular attribute, but his head movement and blocking abilities were superior, then in the situation use was in in the majority of the second half of the Hall fight, his defence would have been more successful, because simply, in range Hall's offence would be more of the made to fail by the two different forms of successful defence I mentioned previously. Let's turn this back the other way, so Hall was well behind after 6 rounds, I think we can establish that, he didn't do very much in the early rounds, his work rate was disappointing, something Hall showed throughout this fight that he didn't show against Guerrero was tactical discipline, he boxed the way he was meant to, he waited for opportunities, he tried to set up his offence before taking any risks, which was sensible, now, let's say Haskins' defence was that different kind of defence I talked about, and his blocking ability was his main defensive attribute, Hall would be very likely to make full use of his potential work rate, make full use of that engine, if he's in range, then he'll throw a lot of punches, it doesn't matter too much about blocking ability on the other side, because when someone someone throws 6 or more punches in one burst, it's very rare that the man on the defensive can block them all, the majority, but all, that's rare, the only time at the top of my head, that I can remember a fighter managing to block so well, is when Richard Abril gave Brandon Rios a boxing lesson, even Floyd Mayweather, even with his special defensive ability, he would block 3-4 on average (well, maybe less depending on the opponent), and then get in his bike, my point is, against a Haskins who blocks, Hall will use his volume, over lap and smother Haskins's offence, and probably manage to split that guard and find the target, because why wouldn't a fighter with that kind of engine hit nothing until he can hit something?, he would be foolish not to, but against Haskins, who was using his feet, Hall didn't throw many punches (obviously you can't miss a shot you don't throw), because whenever he tried to get anything going, Haskins could always move out of range, who's going to hit thin air deliberately when out of range?, he had to get himself into range again first, which he really struggled to do, you see why Haskins' brilliant defence was so useful in the first half of the fight?

Oh right, that would really help Alvarez's already troubled reputation, his big win causing a tsunami.

By the way, Danny Garcia, Willie Munroe Jr, and Caleb Plant all believe Saul Alvarez would beat Gennady Golovkin, I think you could probably find about a dozen others on the Internet who agree.

But in all seriousness, Willie Monroe Jr is a shockingly distasteful person after Golovkin destroyed him. Everyone, including Rosado made fun out of him because he said that Golovkin didn't hit that hard when every other person who has tasted his power has. The only reason he said Alvarez would beat Gennady is because Gennady made him quit in front of the entire boxing world.

He may have said some disrespectful things in the past, but we should still give him respect in what he says about boxing, I'm not trying to convince you that Alvarez is the better if the two, I'm just showing you some evidence of the fact that some believe Alvarez is top dog at 160. I don't think that's the only reason he said it.

He's dissed Golovkin every moment he could. He hates Golovkin... because he made him quit and everyone now jokes about Monroe quitting. People can believe in Alvarez as long as they want... he wont prove himself about Golovkin until Oscar stops protecting him.

He doesn't hate Golovkin, they just don't along, which is fine, they can just go their separate ways without ever being friends. But that's a two way thing isn't it?,I could say the same about Golovkin supporters, you can believe in him against Alvarez all you want, it won't prove him the best until they get in the ring. I agree Golovkin wins, but I'm just saying, be prepared for Alvarez to surprise you, because I'm sure he will, and wanting a fight just so a fighter who you don't like loses isn't a good way for fans to think.

You're deliberately missing the point, because you're being stubborn, and you don't want to consider anything other than Alvarez being someone who MUST lose, come on, Munroe was just one of many examples, I could just as easily used another example, so one who has no bad history with Golovkin, Richard Schaefer, Zab Judah, Brandon Rios, and Floyd Mayweather Jr are four more of many more examples.

Well Alvarez has done most of the avoiding (or Oscar) which makes me think and the rest of us fans that he doesn't want the fight as much as Golovkin does. If Alvarez's team don't have confidence enough that he will win why should we. Therefore in my opinion until the fight happens Golovkin > Alvarez.

That's where I believe you and many others are wrong, I don't think they've been avoiding Golovkin, I think, like Klitschko vs Fury, like Mayweather vs Pacquiao, like Lomackenko vs Walters, like many other big fights with a lot of pride and other things at steak, it's a complex situation, and the fight is hard to make, the whole 'Alvarez and De La Hoya are running scared' malarkey, is just a speculative rumour, from childish, impatient, frustrated fans. That's the way it is being made out to be, but it doesn't make it true, I strongly believe, that Golovkin and Alvarez want the fight just as much as each other, it's just easier for people to use Alvarez as the scapegoat. But that's the thing, they don't have any less confidence than Abel Sanchez, nobody in Canelo's team have ever even hinted that they're not confident Saul would win, of course they're confident, again, stupid, speculative rumours. We should not necessarily have confidence he will win, we should consider the realistic possibility. I don't know what that means, but I respect the opinion, well, of course I do, because it's my opinion too, that Golovkin would beat Alvarez, and you'll rate him higher than Alvarez until we're proved otherwise, all I'm saying, is don't get carried away with Golovkin's apparent superiority, and don't waste your time defending the immature hate campaign of Canelo Alvarez or any other fighters, because, and this is a compliment, your too intelligent.

His canelo-weight problem (trying to get GGG to come down to 155) against the rules and against other opponents.

The corruption involved in his camp and promoter (you may not agree) but I believe to get every single nod is just too unlikely. Also 114-114 against FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR. Don't tell me the person who scored that wasn't either payed off or smashed their head very heard on the way to the fight. I have a suspicious mind.

The dumping of the belt.

All in all I dislike Canelo because he is partly responsible for the actions of his promotion and he hasn't stood up and acted on his own authority. De La Hoya as I say is the puppet master and he is the kind of person not to trust.

The last thing is that Alvarez will more than likely wait until Golovkin has declined and slower and just box to win a UD. I said previously that the best Golovkin at MW is better than the best Alvarez at MW. Golovkin's doesn't have too long left though. If Golovkin loses to Alvarez in a couple of years I wouldn't say he was an overrated bum beater, I would say Alvarez boxed a perfect fight but he waited till Gennady was declining.

I don't want a declining Gennady Golovkin, I want to see the best Gennady Golovkin. Unfortunately for De La Hoya, Canelo is his money machine and Golovkin is just too high risk too little reward because if Golovkin beat Canelo, Gennady's stock rises and he becomes the A-side in my personal opinion.

I'm watching Crolla vs Linares. Have never seen Crolla fight before and just watched Linares for the first time yesterday against Kevin Mitchell. Great performance from Mitchell. I think Crolla wins but need to watch some of his fights before I make an official prediction.

I'm sure you can, because spending your time and energy slating a boxer, is silly.

'Canelo-weight', people don't understand the situation with weight, this whole business with criticising Alvarez because of his weight is so pointless, he does what he does, he makes the same weight as his opponent, every fighter has the right to do what they want, just the same as him, he doesn't have any official rights he doesn't deserve, any fighter can rehydrate, he's a middleweight, he comes in at about 167, that's not unusual, middleweights, they're not small guys, you'd be surprised at how big they are when they're just living life in general. Well, he hasn't always been a middleweight, maybe he felt as of a catch weight would have been a fairer option, he didn't give Golovkin an ultimatum, he just thought it would make the fight safer, we know Golovkin can make 155, he offered to come down to 155 for Kell Brook.

CG Ross is no longer judging, she was never a good judge, although predominantly I defend the sport against critics, I will say this, judges need to be selected in a different, more efficient, more reliable way. I think the location of the venue has been a factor, but getting 2/2 disputable decisions isn't suspicious to me. If you want to be suspicious about the judges' situation, that's fair enough, I can't blame you for thinking twice about that, it puzzles me too. I don't believe CG Ross was bribed in any way.

The reason why he vacated the belt was because he didn't want to commit to middleweight when he wasn't sure whether or not he would be suited to 154.

We don't know, I think many people misjudge Oscar De La Hoya, former world champions don't often end up being shifty businessmen, but I suppose that isn't evidence, and just because I think it unlikely, doesn't make it impossible. The actions of his promotion, well, there's nothing wrong with the actions of his promotion, not really.

Well that's something, but the thing is, decline through age is overrated, especially when the fighter in question is a long time under challenged, healthy, sensible athlete like Golovkin, so I think Alvarez would have to gold the fight up very long if Golovkin was to really decline, I wouldn't be surprised if he did what Lennox Lewis did, and retire when he's 40 or there about, so he retires before we see the declined version of him. I used to think that De La Hoya and Alvarez were planning on hanging Golovkin out to dry, but I don't believe that any more, but I would like to see the fight before the end of 2017, so you and all the rest of the Alvarez bashing crew can't make that excuse, because if Golovkin is 35 or 36, he's not old, he's starting to get a little old, and it doesn't produce the same kind of allowance. Like I said, that isn't a fact, it is possible, like a tiny percentage but fairly large number of knowledgeable people believe that the best Alvarez, beats the best Golovkin, because he is better, I doubt it, you doubt it, but we don't know it isn't the case, if Alvarez beat Golovkin, you should be happy for him, to me, that's how sport works, you're a fan of Golovkin, if he loses, you should have such a high level of respect for the opponent who beats them, that you become a fan of theirs as well, the sport is so much more fun to follow when you think like that, Golovkin is a good man, and a dedicated athlete, Alvarez is a good man and a dedicated athlete, let's not be silly with here say, gossip, and speculation, it's a waste of everybody's time, or do you actually find it fun and amusing to hate people?

No, he would definitely become the A-side. I don't think that's the case, what you have to remember, is that Alvarez has already lost to Floyd Mayweather, he's been in there with the best, he's a three time world champion, he's beaten Amir Khan and Miguel Cotto, nobody can ever take that away from him, he's already lost to Floyd Mayweather, is there any more shame in losing to GGG than there is in losing to Floyd Mayweather?, there can't be much more, there's nothing he'll lose from that defeat, that he didn't lose from the Mayweather defeat, if the Golovkin fight is as great and competitive as I think it would be, then the rematch would be an option, Alvarez is not yet 27, he bounced back frothed Mayweather defeat, that was his first defeat, it would probably be easier for him to bounce back from the Golovkin defeat.

I didn't think he'd beat Barroso, but I was so happy to have been wrong.

Whatever floats your boat, we both want the fight to happen, that we have in common, and that, we can agree on. I will root for Golovkin when the fight happens, because your my mate, but more so because I'm a bit terrified of Tsunami's.

Yeah well, he was going to fight Andre Berto, which isn't a whole lot better, I'm sure you believe Molina beating Provodnikov doesn't make him a sensible opponent for Garcia, and I agree, but Berto beating Ortiz, and getting the shot because of that, was worse in my opinion. Let's hope the rumours of Thurman vs Garcia are true, because Thurman has been calling him for an eternity, but to be honest, if Porter was to get the WBC shot, which I reckon he deserves, I reckon he would ruin Thurman vs Garcia, and esculate the excitement for a rematch.